Grigsby

Grigsby v. Barnhart

Good Law
76 F. App'x 814
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 26, 2003No. 02-35415; D.C. No. CV-00-05561-FDBCalifornia1,625 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Paez, J.

MEMORANDUM ***

Carmen Grigsby appeals the district court judgment affirming the denial of her application for SSI disability benefits. We affirm.

We review the district court’s decision de novo. See Morgan v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 169 F.3d 595, 599 (9th Cir. 1999). The Commissioner’s decision “will be overturned only if it is not supported by substantial evidence or is based on legal error.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We find no legal error in the decision below and find that the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Grigsby complains that the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in relying on the medical-vocational guidelines or “grids” because of her non-exertional impairments such as fatigue and susceptibility to infection. We cannot say that the ALJ legally or factually erred in this regard. We have held that significant nonexertional impairments may make reliance on the grids inappropriate, but that the ALJ may rely on the grids rather than a vocational expert if the grids “completely and accurately represent a claimant’s limitations.” Tackett v. Apfel, 180 F.3d 1094, 1101 (9th Cir.1999) (emphasis in original). The ALJ considered Grigsby’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.